BART and the Victoria Line: A Comparison of New Commuter Transport in California and London John Griffith* and Dallas Holmes*'- VOLUTION OF THE MODERN METROPOLIS with its attendant suburbia has created the problem of moving persons into, through, and out of these huge municipal complexes.1 Because private transportation has not proved equal to the task, the commuting problem has fallen to public authorities for solution. However, these public authorities have been ordered to establish comprehensive mass transit systems without inter- fering with existing governmental spheres of authority or with private sectors of the economy. This Article is an introduction to the ways in which two cities-San Francisco and London-have approached the problem of commuter trans- portation. In particular, comparison will be made between the administra- tive and legal structures these cities have employed in making decisions about mass transportation. Hopefully, such analysis will also illuminate general problems inherent in thrusts toward regional government. Part I, with a historical description of the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), introduces a discussion in Part II of the regional government of BART; Parts III and IV, in turn, make parallel dis- cussion of the history and government of London rapid transit (the Victoria Line). Finally, after comparison of the two systems, some tenta- tive conclusions will be drawn. This essay is not intended as a comprehen- sive analysis of either BART or the Victoria Line, but rather as a comparative study of the two systems for the limited purpose of casting light on the problems of metropolitan rapid transit. I HISTORY OF THE BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM A. San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Rapid Transit District Act of 1949 The history of the Bay Area rapid transit system for present purposes begins in 1949 when the California legislature passed the San Francisco * LL.B., 1940; LL.M., 1948. Professor of English Law, London School of Economics. **A.B., 1962, Pomona College; M.Sc. (Econ.), 1964, London School of Economics, J.D., 1967, University of California School of Law, Berkeley. 1 "In. 1960 more than 125 million people were living in the cities and suburbs of the United States. Each year urban America is spreading at the rate of a million acres-an area as large as the state of Rhode Island. In the past decade and a half, the growth of urbaniza- 780 BART AND THE VICTORIA LINE Bay Area Metropolitan Rapid Transit District Act.' The purpose of the Act was to implement the declared policy of the State of California of stimulating maximum use of San Francisco harbor to promote domestic and international trade. As the Act recited, the geographical peculiarities of the Bay, which make it one of the finest harbors in the world, prevent full utilization of the harbor by constituting physical barriers to effective transportation of persons between various portions of the metropolitan area surrounding the Bay. As a solution, the Act contemplated the development of a rapid transit system.3 According to the 1949 Rapid Transit Act, a specially created district was needed to operate effectively in the context of multiple Bay Area governmental units. Therefore, to insure the necessary rapid transit sys- tem, it enabled the establishment of the San Francisco Bay Metropolitan Area Rapid Transit District. The Act provided that the District "shall include" the City and County of San Francisco and the cities of Alameda, Albany, Berkeley, Emeryville, Hayward, Oakland, Piedmont, and San Leandro, and "may include" all or any part of Matin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties and any city situated therein. Altogether, over seventy county, city and county, and city governments were potentially involved. A county board of supervisors desiring to join in forming the District was required to hold a public hearing to consider objections to joining the District. In resolving to form the District, the county board could delineate that part of its territory to be included or excluded. Elections were to follow in each county within the proposed District to determine whether the District should be formed. Each county was to report the election results separately for each city and unincorporated area within its bound- aries. If a majority of the votes cast in the City and County of San Francisco and a majority of votes cast in each of the cities listed above favored the formation of the District, the Secretary of State was to declare the District formed. Although counties which approved formation of the District were to be included, cities and unincorporated areas within those counties which failed to approve the District were to be excluded. After the formation of the District, a council was to be appointed consisting of one representative from each governmental unit included.4 tion has been equivalent to duplicating the populations of metropolitan New York, Detroit, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Philadelphia." W. OwEN, THE METROPOLriAN TRANSPORTATION PROBLEM 1 (rev. ed. 1966). 2 Ch. 1239, [1949] Cal. Stats. 2173. 3 It defined rapid transit as the transportation of passengers by means of rail, monorail, or similar means, upon, above, or below the surface of land or water, and for the most part separated from intersecting traffic. Id. § 3 (b), at 2174. 4 Each city with a population of 200,000 would have one extra representative for each additional 200,000 persons or fraction thereof. CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 95: 780 Members of the council were to be appointed for four years but could be removed at any time by their parent bodies. The Act then itemized the powers of the District. These included the power to provide rapid transit facilities, the power of eminent domain, the power to acquire and construct all necessary facilities, to fix rates and fares, and to borrow money and levy taxes within the limits prescribed by the Act. The powers of the District were normally exercisable by the council or a board of management appointed by the council, consisting of five members qualified by training and experience to conduct the opera- tion of rapid transit facilities. The Act required the council to employ competent engineers to develop a comprehensive plan before incurring any bonded indebtedness. A special election requiring a two-thirds majority was to be held for the purpose of authorizing such bonded indebtedness. If authorization was not obtained at the first election, a second election could be held within six months. Taxes could be levied to meet payments of principle and interest on the bonds. B. PreliminaryReports on the Transit Problem In March 1950 the Oakland City Planning Commission staff submitted a preliminary report' to the mayors and managers of the cities in the East Bay. This report analyzed existing transportation facilities in the East Bay and criticized Key System, the local bus service. It suggested certain immediate and costly improvements in the bus service. In a cautious state- ment of doubtful validity, however, the report suggested that if Key System could attract sufficient additional patronage, such increased out- lays might eventually lead to net gains in revenue. The only agency with power to regulate private carriers was the State Public Utilities Commission, and the report noted that since 1945 almost all of Key System's applications to the Commission had been for cuts in services and increases in fares. Although most requests had been granted because the carrier was losing money, the result had been a natural and further decline in patronage. The report emphasized the need for a rapid transit system on grade- separated rights of way.6 It argued for public, rather than private, control and ownership of the system. It also urged the creation of an area-wide, special purpose district to control the system, admitting, however, that such a special district would add to the existing multiplicity of govern- mental units. The report spoke of the "strong possibility" that the estab- 5 OAxLAND CITY PLANNING Comm'N STAPF, TNR TRANSIT PROBLKN n THE EAST BAY (1960). 6The transit system's tracks would be separated by underpass or overpass from other rights of way (such as highways or footpaths) to avoid cross traffic over its tracks. 1967] BART AND THE VICTORIA LINE lishment of a successful metropolitan transit district might lead to the solution of other area-wide problems on a similar basis. However, since no legal machinery existed in 1950 enabling the cities of the East Bay to create a joint transit system, state legislation would be necessary. The Act of 1949 permitted the East Bay cities to form a district only if San Francisco was also included. Moreover, the report said that "the act also is unworkable in that it denies a district the power to acquire any existing transit system or to operate local feeder lines where they would compete with an existing service."' Although the report con- cerned only the East Bay, it recognized that ultimately the East Bay, San Francisco, the Peninsula, and the counties north of the Bay should be served by a unified afid coordinated regional transit network. It therefore recommended an immediate survey of the East Bay's needs as a step toward making plans for improved transit. In April 1951 the Senate Interim Committee on the San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan Rapid Transit Problems issued a report empha- sizing the urgent need for the kind of transit system envisioned by the Act of 1949, while noting that the area's seventy-six political subdivisions made the development of a coordinated program difficult without the guidance of some neutral leadership.' The Committee believed that devel- opment of a rapid transit system presupposed technical, authoritative en- gineering studies and that the residents of the Bay Area were not ready to vote on establishing a rapid transit district because they lacked ade- quate information on the subject.